MonkRome

If you really want to startle them awake:

Wannabe - Spice Girls has an abrupt start. Someone woke me up that way when I was young and I hated it.

Fair enough, complaining about reposts is still incredibly silly.

To believe that reposts are a problem you have to believe that everyone has been online at the exact same time as you and seen the things you've seen. I know you will find this incomprehensible, but this is my first time seeing this comic.

Statistically anything making you more visable to drivers does more for safety than a helmet. (Not advocating against helmets) I think 2 rear lights is relevant, it goes to how little attention was given to the road.

I agree, a car is a loaded gun. If you had someone walking around accidentally pointing their loaded gun at people because they were not paying attention to where it was pointing, no one would be surprised when he accidentally kills someone. A rational person would recognize the negligence. But when people consistently drive carelessly others act like it was a random accident when someone dies. No MF, their negligence killed someone.

There are all kinds of things that the law says to do that isn't optimal. Sometimes the right thing to do isn't ideological, but realistic and practical. I agree everyone should collectively slow down, not because its lawful but because it is safer. But until they do, I will always pick the safer option over what is lawful. Lawfulness is not a barometer of ethics, its a tool of power.

Nowhere in the article does it say that. Your ego is more important than your own life or the life of others, that tracks with both of your comments.

the core insight remains widely accepted in traffic engineering: deviation from the average traffic speed, especially on high-speed roads, is a significant risk factor.

Certainly it is safer if everyone everyone drives the speed limit, lowering the speed of traffic. But that's not realistically what happens. I'm talking about when you are around other cars that are all going over the limit. The difference in speed between vehicles is also dangerous. When you drive slower than traffic you become a hazard and bottleneck that raises the danger of everyone near you. Better to be alive than "right".

The title is clickbait, its really about difference in speed: https://seasia.co/2025/09/05/driving-slower-is-actually-more-dangerous-than-driving-fast

Challenge your assumptions.

The safest speed to go is the speed of traffic. If the limit is 55 and you are driving 52 but everyone else is driving 62, you are the most dangerous person on the road.

Congrats on actually addressing an answer. I have hope for you. Maybe go back to the person you claimed never answered you, with your response to them as well.

Any answer any of us give is going to be speculation, we don't have their financials in front of us. If you want more than speculation your best option is to research the topic yourself or go to New York and foia request the grocery store financials. No one on Lemmy is going to do that for you just because you asked a question. People are going to respond what they think while they take a shit and go about their day.

This is not an explanation, this is speculation, as denoted by the word "probably".

A speculative explanation is still an explanation. We are not obligated to give an academic response to a half asses question to a person too mentally lazy to research their own question. If this is so important to you, that you will attempt to annoy dozens of commenters and readers on the internet, you could have used that time to try to answer that question yourself if you need a thorough accounting of their financial outlay. No one here will do that for you just because you are, "just asking questions".

You can try to annoy me all you want though, I enjoy responding to people looking for pointless arguments.

Point to were he made that promise... I'll wait. He basically said he would if he could and then confirmed what everyone already knew. That he doesn't have the authority to do so.

Your reading comprehension through all of this has been abysmal, possible explanations have been given by me and others and you are still sea-lioning.

They probably realized their cost outlay is lower than they anticipated and they are passing those savings on to the consumer.

Others have suggested they are absorbing those discounts in non essential items.

You can disagree with these explanations, but you instead keep sidestepping them and choosing to pretend your question wasn't answered.